It is currently 24 Sep 2017, 01:50

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy is

Author Message
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 853

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 0

The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy is [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2007, 23:02
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy is the following: people making economic decisions cannot readily compare environmental factors, such as clean air and the survival of endangered species, with other costs and benefits. As environmental economists recognize, solving this problem requires assigning monetary values to environmental factors. But monetary values result from people comparing costs and benefits in order to arrive at economic decisions. Thus, environmental economics is stymied by what motivates it.

If the considerations advanced in its support are true, the passageâ€™s conclusion is supported
(A) strongly, on the assumption that monetary values for environment factors cannot be assigned unless people make economic decisions about these factors
(B) strongly, unless economic decision-making has not yet had any effect on the things categorized as environmental factors
(C) at best weakly, because the passage fails to establish that economic decision-makers do not by and large take adequate account of environmental factors
(D) at best weakly, because the argument assumes that pollution and other effects on environmental factors rarely result from economic decision-making
(E) not at all, since the argument is circular, taking that conclusion as one of its premises

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 0

 Economist GMAT Tutor Discount Codes EMPOWERgmat Discount Codes e-GMAT Discount Codes
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1441

Kudos [?]: 214 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2007, 02:31
WHat a mess...

Economic decisions â€“ requires monetary comparison â€“ monetary comparisons require assigning monetary values â€“ monetary values result from comparisons to make economic decisions.

It looks like E.. circular reasoning.. but I am not sure.

Kudos [?]: 214 [0], given: 13

Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 208

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2007, 14:00
I'll go with (B). It says

unless economic decision-making has not yet had any effect on the things categorized as environmental factors

so for the conclusion to be supported,
economic decision-making should not have had any effect on the things categorized as environmental factors.

I'll go with this.

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3354

Kudos [?]: 316 [0], given: 2

Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2007, 14:36
I will go with B too..

Kudos [?]: 316 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 112

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2007, 15:47
A.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1344

Kudos [?]: 801 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2007, 17:10
Premise1 :solving this problem requires assigning monetary values to environmental factors.
Premise 2: But monetary values result from people comparing costs and benefits in order to arrive at economic decisions.
Conclusion:Thus, environmental economics is stymied by what motivates it.

Question: What supports the conclusion?
Attitude of the people to think on monetary terms.

B!

Kudos [?]: 801 [0], given: 10

Director
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 840

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 1

GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2007, 09:33
Wow
Couldn't make sense at all of this one... seems like an E to me.

Anand

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 853

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2007, 10:32
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Only ng got it right...but can u tell me whats wrong with E ng??

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 271

Kudos [?]: 108 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2007, 10:33
I thought E too!!

This is how I solved the question... Would like to know the OA

compare environmental factors (A)
costs and benefits (B)
monetary values (C)

The problem is that - A cannot be compared with B
To solve problem - A should be assigned C
But C can be obtained by B

So we are kind of back to square one

Kudos [?]: 108 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 172

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2007, 10:57
I am totally confused but putting my 2 cents on A as it only makes some sense in the context of the question.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1344

Kudos [?]: 801 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2007, 11:15
vineetgupta wrote:
The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy is the following: people making economic decisions cannot readily compare environmental factors, such as clean air and the survival of endangered species, with other costs and benefits. As environmental economists recognize, solving this problem requires assigning monetary values to environmental factors. But monetary values result from people comparing costs and benefits in order to arrive at economic decisions. Thus, environmental economics is stymied by what motivates it.

If the considerations advanced in its support are true, the passageтАЩs conclusion is supported
(A) strongly, on the assumption that monetary values for environment factors cannot be assigned unless people make economic decisions about these factors
(B) strongly, unless economic decision-making has not yet had any effect on the things categorized as environmental factors
(C) at best weakly, because the passage fails to establish that economic decision-makers do not by and large take adequate account of environmental factors
(D) at best weakly, because the argument assumes that pollution and other effects on environmental factors rarely result from economic decision-making
(E) not at all, since the argument is circular, taking that conclusion as one of its premises

Pls post the OA.

Kudos [?]: 801 [0], given: 10

Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 853

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2007, 11:36
The OA is A...can anyone explain??

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 112

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2007, 13:04
The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy is the following: people making economic decisions cannot readily compare environmental factors, such as clean air and the survival of endangered species, with other costs and benefits. As environmental economists recognize, solving this problem requires assigning monetary values to environmental factors. But monetary values result from people comparing costs and benefits in order to arrive at economic decisions. Thus, environmental economics is stymied by what motivates it.

Goal: The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy: People making economic decisions cannot readily compare environmental factors, such as clean air and the survival of endangered species, with other costs and benefits

Explananation: Environmental economists recognize, solving this problem requires assigning monetary values to environmental factors

Counter Premise: Monetary values result from people comparing costs and benefits in order to arrive at economic decisions

Conclusion: Environmental economics is stymied by what motivates it.

The question is asking us to provide support i.e. which of the following is best supports the conclusion тАШenvironmental economics is stymied by what motivates itтАЩ

With that said lets look at the options:-
(A) Strongly, on the assumption that monetary values for environment factors cannot be assigned unless people make economic decisions about these factors

Yes!
Even if you use formal logic this holds true

(B) Strongly, unless economic decision-making has not yet had any effect on the things categorized as environmental factors (Unrelated and out of Scope)

(C) At best weakly, because the passage fails to establish that economic decision-makers do not by and large take adequate account of environmental factors

(Nothing has been said about these)

(D) at best weakly, because the argument assumes that pollution and other effects on environmental factors rarely result from economic decision-making
(Out of Scope)

(E) not at all, since the argument is circular, taking that conclusion as one of its premises
We are not asked to critique the argument, we are asked to provide support (out)

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

20 Apr 2007, 13:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by